Remember this

[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5SdDUWwy5lk[/video]

Smashy smashy

I can’t find the original thread, but CPS have today announced:

Mar 16, 2017
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has charged a Metropolitan Police officer with four offences, following an investigation by the IPCC.

The charges relate to an incident on Vicars Road, Camden on 16 September, 2016, which was referred to the IPCC following a complaint about police conduct made by a member of the public.

The incident, which involved PC Joshua Savage and a second officer conducting a stop and search upon the driver of a Ford Fiesta, was filmed and shared widely through both social and mainstream media.

The IPCC completed its investigation in February 2017 and referred its conclusions to the CPS. On 14 March 2017 the CPS authorised charges be made against PC Savage of common assault, possession of a bladed article, criminal damage and threatening behaviour.

No excuse but I reckon he’d had a bad week and one more teenage gobsh*t took him over.

A good chance for a ‘mental’ breakdown plea I would think.

coincidence? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO8EpfyCG2Y

Transferred to the SPG

Yeah, unacceptable, and right to charge him.

In spite of that my *sympathy* is 100pc with the rozzer.

Outofbreath +1

Action had to be taken, cannot be condoned but was probably pushed too far too often.

Why was that other chump just standing and watching while his colleague was committing a probable offence? It did him no favours letting him go off on one like that.

johnners – Member
Why was that other chump just standing and watching while his colleague was committing a probable offence? It did him no favours letting him go off on one like that.

That’s assuming that this example was somehow exceptional and not a regular occurrence.

I was interested in the part of the charge relating to being in possession of a bladed weapon. Is it common for Police officers to be carrying bladed weapons and, if not, why did he have one. If it’s part of the standard kit then I assume that charge wouldn’t have been made.

Here was me thinking it was the not the nine oclock news pc savage who kept on arresting a black guy for walking on the cracks of the pavement, having an offensive wife and wearing a loud shirt between the hours of 7 pm and 7 am
Rowan Atkinson was very funny but that pc is definitely not

Heard on radio bladed item was a Swiss Army knife. That could catch a few people out.

Sorry i missed the clip its one of my favourites constable savage and forgot it was griff

Heard on radio bladed item was a Swiss Army knife. That could catch a few people out.

Well, a folding knife is perfectly legal, but what he had appeared to be:

Which is a locking blade of over three inches.

There’s a defence available that he used it for work/rescuing small kittens/cutting seat belts etc… but whether it would be found to be “reasonable” is a matter of opinion, I’d be surprised if the met police didn’t have some sort of guideline, and I would bet that the line being taken is that “well, if you needed it for your job, then it would have been issued to you”

b r – Member

No excuse but I reckon he’d had a bad week and one more teenage gobsh*t took him over.

A good chance for a ‘mental’ breakdown plea I would think.

Shouldn’t be doing that job then.

Yeah, that’s what I was trying to understand. I can see that such a tool would be a handy thing for a police officer to have access to so there would have to be some sort of exemption. Although, as has been pointed out on here, if I buy a set of steak knives and I’m stopped when I’m walking home with them then I would be very unlikely to be charged (or, for instance a fisherman/hunter with a longer knife). I thought that “intent” was part of the justification for bringing a charge.

Not necessarily intent scotroutes – its do you have a lawful reason for carrying it. IE the butcher or cook has a legitimate reason to carry big shap knives. A ned doesn’t.

scotroutes

Yeah, that’s what I was trying to understand. I can see that such a tool would be a handy thing for a police officer

They are allowed extendable batons, pepper spray, tazers and in some circumstances MP5s and G36 assault rifles so I a folding pocket knife isn’t really a big deal is it?

I thought that “intent” was part of the justification for bringing a charge

No, that would be an “offensive weapon” charge – some things are ‘de facto’ offensive weapons, like butterfly knives, others it’s down to intent – e.g. A cricket ball, screwdriver or even a newspaper (millwall brick) could be perfectly innocent or an offensive weapon dependent on the context and intent.

Essentially, intent was so hard to prove that they banned carrying of knives, so that any folding knife over 3″ or with a locking blade was automatically prohibited as a ‘bladed article”… unless you had a reasonable excuse for possession (e.g. Work, just bought them and going home, religious o cultural dress).

Non locking knives under 3″ are not restricted… except where the context or intent make them into offensive weapons (e.g., walking down the street, no problem, arrested after a fight in a nightclub, problem)

They are allowed extendable batons, pepper spray, tazers and in some circumstances MP5s and G36 assault rifles so I a folding pocket knife isn’t really a big deal is it?

As pointed out, all those things are issued by their employer* as necessary to the job, if they needed a knife, then they would have been given one (I would certainly accept that there are hundreds of perfectly legitimate and good reasons why a copper might carry a knife, all of which would fall under the defences available, however Ibhave no idea what the police rules and regs say, and if they say he isn’t allowed one, then he couldn’t argue he needed one, could he?)

(*Technically the police are not employees, but you get the point)

I imagine that charge has been libelled for thoroughness/transparency/ensuring they can’t be accused of ignoring it and when it comes to it, that will be reviewed and potentially dropped. Thousands of police officers carry multitools, same as lots of normal people do. I have one in my desk drawer for cutting biltong and shaving Parmesan. It’s hardly the crux of this case.

Life imitating art ? 🙁
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO8EpfyCG2Y[/video]

Edit/Oops – sorry DM52- you called it first.

You imitating the post of 5 hrs previously?

Entirely different level but does make me think of that Marine that got his murder conviction downgraded.

Just had more than he could take.

Yeah, I was just trying to understand how that fitted into the general scheme of things.

That Parmesan can sure put up a bit of a fight though eh?

😛

They often libel all they can as it can be used for, er…negotiation later. Yes, it can be tricky to get the flakes just the right size. But important.

Out of interest TGA, what is the procedure if a driver won’t step out of the car? I assume ultimately the car does get damaged, but there’s a few more procedural steps this guy missed out?

ninfan

They are allowed extendable batons, pepper spray, tazers and in some circumstances MP5s and G36 assault rifles so I a folding pocket knife isn’t really a big deal is it?

As pointed out, all those things are issued by their employer* as necessary to the job, if they needed a knife, then they would have been given one (I would certainly accept that there are hundreds of perfectly legitimate and good reasons why a copper might carry a knife, all of which would fall under the defences available, however Ibhave no idea what the police rules and regs say, and if they say he isn’t allowed one, then he couldn’t argue he needed one, could he?)

(*Technically the police are not employees, but you get the point) [/quote]

Yes I get that if they needed a knife they would have been given one but if we’re discussing the legality of something (or illegality) then for a special group of people who, as part of their job, are allowed to carry a myriad of illegal offensive weapons, a small knife isn’t a big deal.

Not sure why I’m arguing, the law is an arse with regards to what private citizens can and can’t carry.

Out of interest TGA, what is the procedure if a driver won’t step out of the car? I assume ultimately the car does get damaged, but there’s a few more procedural steps this guy missed out?

It depends. There is no specific requirement to get out of your car while the police talk to you. Conversely, if you behave in such a way that ends up constituting an offence, they may then have a power of arrest, in which case they can remove you from the car using proportionate force if necessary.

Eg. If you were stopped for speeding, pulled over, declined to get out of your car but otherwise fulfilled your statutory obligations to provide your name and address etc., then there would be no grounds to remove you from the car by force.

If, however, you stopped and then refused to engage and thereby failed to give your details, you can be arrested, and if they have to break your car window to do that, so be it.

And this applies to numerous situations, where someone might, through their conduct, end up doing something or failing to fulfil an obligation that creates grounds and a necessity to arrest them.

In short, it depends!

Thanks for the clarification. Pretty much as I thought, hence why I disagree with OOB up there – no sympathy at all for the officer, he was asking the driver to do something he wasn’t required to do (it appeared that the driver knew the law as he was offering to do what was required to reassure the officer that no offence was going to be committed).

Ta TGA!

If the officer wanted to get him out of the car, what evidence would he have needed in that scenario to go for a vehicle or personal search?

The smell of booze or drugs.

If you think they have hidden something out of view.

If you just really want to.

Nothing wrong with staying in the car. If you get of the car in the US, the Police will likely shoot you. So staying put is a good call.

If you get of the car in the US

I may be confusing the accents, but I reckon that was England.